Featured What Are main Differences between Arms and Non cals?

double post

 

Very good post on pointing out the differences. One cannot equate a defined group (Arminian) with a set of people that is basically undefined as being as being "not" another defined group. (Calvinist) For example, atheists and agnostics are non-Cals, as are Mormons and JWs. I would not classify any of these four as being Arminian, or Christian for that matter.

 

Just wanted to confirm the parameters of this discussion --it deals with believers --the household of faith -- not the unregenerate. The OP certainly wasn't addressing Christians and the unsaved.

 

Certainly it is true that the free will position in the Arminian context where it is allowed that man is depraved - but that the supernatural "drawing of ALL" John 12:32 fully enables the choice for "all" that depravity for all disables - is not consistent with an OSAS "have no choice once saved to change your mind".

Which is why Arminians tend to take Romans 11 "you stand by your faith alone... you should fear" and Matt 18 "Forgiveness revoked" - texts as a very serious warning about the real danger of "Falling from Grace" and being "Severed from Christ" Gal 5:4 - in a way that does not support OSAS , and does not attribute that warning to a fake mythical danger that is not even real, nor imagine that the warning is to the LOST about the dangers of being LOST-ER.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Originally Posted by BobRyan

By contrast many Calvinists claim that the difference between the saved and the lost is ONLY that God selected one to be saved and one to be lost AND That God does not select one to be saved BECAUSE that one does/or is/ or says anything at all. God selects them because He sovereignly decides to love that ONE and NOT that OTHER ONE.

Indeed. But that point is SHARED between Calvinists and Arminians - it is not a difference.

Where they differ is that the Arminian will notice that God has sovereignly chosen the "Whosoever WILL" model because "he gets to and His Word says this is His choice -- He is sovereign He can do what He wants".

Where they differ is that the Arminian will notice that God has sovereignly chosen the "God So Loved the WORLD -- yes REALLY!" model because "he gets to and His Word says this is His choice -- He is sovereign He can do what He wants".

Indeed that is the question that the Arminian would then ask the Cavlinist.

Yes! Exactly - that is the complaint the Arminian would then make when the Calvlinist appears to object to God's sovereign choice for free will.

Because a number of Calvinist authors have stated that very thing about the difference between those selected to be saved and those selected to remain lost -insisting that there is "NO DIFFERENCE" at all between them - the difference ALONE is "God's choice". Not anything at all that can be pointed to between the two lost people - where one is selected to be IN and the other left.

It is the picture perfect definition for arbitrary.

I agree that they don't like this detail coming up. They just have no answer for it - other than some pulpit pounding. Which as we all know is not a funny sort of substitute for reason and argument, and indeed evidence in favor of a given POV.

But they have free will - they can choose that path if they so wish.

I notice that even in your own post -aside from the much expected "harrumph!" you give no actual evidence showing where Calvinists do point to a difference between lost person-A and lost person-B resulting in God's choice of Person-A over B.

I think we all pretty much expected that - even the Calvinists among us.

in Christ,

Bob

 

That is completely false. Calvinists believe God determines destinies, whereas Arminians believe man determines destines. Who is the Creator? Man or God?

This shows a total misunderstanding of the verse. "Whosoever will" will not unless quickened by the Holy Spirit. Man only has the free will to choose among evil and unholy decisions.

Yes, God does what he wants, and needs no help from man. God did not need man's help when Abraham decided to procreate a baby outside God's predestined line. This is not a partnership between man and God. God is the Creator. He makes the rules and He calls the shots.

The word is Calvinist, not Cavlinist. Rippon can tell you I have no admiration for the man Calvin, but in the area of the sovereignty of God, Calvin is right on target despite his other errors. The question a Calvinist would ask an Arminian is "what gives you the right to determine your own destiny as a created being?" Who do we worship and adore? Who do we owe every breath we take to? Who sets the time of our birth and death? Who chooses our mates in life? Who gives us the skills to maintain a job? Who gives us eternal life? Who made the universe.

That is partially right. The difference is who the Holy Spirit quickened. It is not our right to question why or decide who. We are the created beings. The difference between the lost and the saved is that Christ forgave the sins of the saved, and He did not the sins of the lost. It is that simple. Who did the Holy Spirit quicken? Duh, the elect. The only difference between lost souls is the degree of the evil. This is a game where almost does not count. One is either saved or they are not. The only reason you harp on the ability of man to determine his salvation is that you think it is not fair under any other system. The fact is, the Bible makes it crystal clear, that God is sovereign, and that He has not chosen to make man a partner in that decision.

To tell the truth, coming from the doctrine of your denomination, the term "I agree" scares the deepest essence out of me if I ever did agree. In addition to being dead wrong about election, predestination, and God's sovereignty, your doctrine teaches a off the wall Gospel.

So here is a typical Arminian free will salvation experience.
"My, its a warm spring day. The sky is blue, the birds are chirping, the sun is shinning, what a great day to become saved."

I notice you have no understanding of God's nature in sovereignty and the free will of man. To address your last statement in that quote, God is not obligated to tell you why He chose Person A over Person B.

That was really uncalled for, an indirect swipe to the character of those who believe that God is sovereign. I will congratulate you on one thing though, you are the only person on this board that could get me to agree with Rippon. Before you debate Godly Christians, do it from a basis of doctrine or denomination that believes the Bible is the Word of God.

 

Originally Posted by BobRyan

By contrast many Calvinists claim that the difference between the saved and the lost is ONLY that God selected one to be saved and one to be lost AND That God does not select one to be saved BECAUSE that one does/or is/ or says anything at all. God selects them because He sovereignly decides to love that ONE and NOT that OTHER ONE.

Indeed. But that point is SHARED between Calvinists and Arminians - it is not a difference.

Where they differ is that the Arminian will notice that God has sovereignly chosen the "Whosoever WILL" model because "he gets to and His Word says this is His choice -- He is sovereign He can do what He wants".

Where they differ is that the Arminian will notice that God has sovereignly chosen the "God So Loved the WORLD -- yes REALLY!" model because "he gets to and His Word says this is His choice -- He is sovereign He can do what He wants".

Indeed that is the question that the Arminian would then ask the Cavlinist.

Yes! Exactly - that is the complaint the Arminian would then make when the Calvlinist appears to object to God's sovereign choice for free will.

Your use of a circular argument to defend Calvinism is not at all compelling.

The point therefore remains in the post above.

And your response simply argues that as a Calvinist you argue that if God sovereignly chooses free will - well then He cannot be God or sovereign since that is.... not... err... um... Calvinism to sovereignly choose His "Whosoever WILL" and His "God So Loved the World - yes really" model instead of man-made-Calvinism.

Surely you see the flaw in your logic at that point. You set God up so that He cannot sovereignly choose anything other than what you dictate to him through Calvinism - declaring that He is no longer sovereign if He chooses His "Whosoever WILL model"

"HE came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1.

Hence all the examples above where the Arminian response to the Calvinist - they are not letting God "be God" and sovereignly choose a system that does not agree with the man-made tradition of Calvinism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Because a number of Calvinist authors have stated that very thing about the difference between those selected to be saved and those selected to remain lost -insisting that there is "NO DIFFERENCE" at all between them - the difference ALONE is "God's choice". Not anything at all that can be pointed to between the two lost people - where one is selected to be IN and the other left.

It is the picture perfect definition for arbitrary.

I agree that they don't like this detail coming up. They just have no answer for it - other than some pulpit pounding. Which as we all know is not a funny sort of substitute for reason and argument, and indeed evidence in favor of a given POV.

But they have free will - they can choose that path if they so wish.

I notice that even in your own post -aside from the much expected "harrumph!" you give no actual evidence showing where Calvinists do point to a difference between lost person-A and lost person-B resulting in God's choice of Person-A over B.

I think we all pretty much expected that - even the Calvinists among us.

================================================

Now watch as yet another Calvinist objects while ALSO not offering a single item of evidence in support of the idea that they are NOT taking the position stated above -- namely

"a number of Calvinist authors have stated that very thing about the difference between those selected to be saved and those selected to remain lost -insisting that there is "NO DIFFERENCE" at all between them - the difference ALONE is "God's choice". Not anything at all that can be pointed to between the two lost people - where one is selected to be IN and the other left.

It is the picture perfect definition for arbitrary."

The response will begin as the comment above states - with "harrrumph!"

And there you have it -- more evidence for "exhibit A".

Even as Calvinists object - they also consistently fail to come up with even one example to refute the fact that they are making an appeal to 'arbitrary selection".

Now here is a Calvinist not objecting quite so much.

Another Calvinist source not at all dedicated to complaining about arbitrary selection.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Certainly I agree that the Arminian model is not Calvinist.

 

How then HAS God elected the elect?

 

Whom He foreknew - He what??

The idea that God chooses an arbitrary method to select out the saved - is often the way that the Calvinist argument is framed - by Calvinists themselves.

======================

[FONT=&quot]In our Confession, Chapter 3, Sections 3, 4, and 7, we have this description of it: "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life and others foreordained to everlasting death" (3). "These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished" (4).
"The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice" (7).[/FONT]
….
We must not make an independent God depend upon his own dependent creature. But does not Scripture often represent a salvation or ruin of sinners as conditioned on their own faith or unbelief? Yes.
….
We (Calvinists) believe that God's election of individuals is unconditioned and sovereign. They (Arminians) believe that while eternal and particular, it is on account of God's eternal, omniscient foresight of the given sinner's future faith and repentance, and perseverance in holy living. But we Presbyterians must dissent for these reasons: It is inconsistent with the eternity, omnipotence, and sovereignty of the great first cause to represent his eternal purposes thus, as grounded in, or conditioned on, anything which one of his dependent creatures would hereafter contingently do or leave undone. – R.L. Dabney

=====================

Is it any wonder that in Calvinism's denial of "God so Loved the WORLD -- yes really!" - it is difficult to then teach your child to sing "Jesus loves ME - this I know for the Bible tells me so".

Because each time the Bible "tells me so" it is followed by Calvinism's "well not really ALL - just the FEW of Matt 7:

Calvinism's unconditional election works for "God so Loved the WORLD -- yes really" because it answers the question why does God so love the entire WORLD??

Because He sovereignly chose to do it.

But when it is applied to 'just the FEW" of Matt 7 as if God were arbitrarily selecting out the FEW - then it is stuck at the point of "arbitrary selection".

in Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, did you ever take time to notice that the Calvinist you quote are simply quoting God's own stated purpose as found in His own word?

Rom. 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.....18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Eph. 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace......11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12 That we should be to the praise of his glory,

In Romans 9 Paul anticipates the very same objections given by only Arminians and responds by the very same answers given only by Calvinists. If your interpretation of Romans 9 were correct then why does Paul give the very answers to those objections that you object to??????

 

Yes, you show that in the flesh people despise God's ways when it overrides free will. It's called Sovereignty.

You add the denigrating remark 'arbitrary', another fleshly take on God and His ways. God calls it His purpose, and the Calvinist position you repudiate is actually 100% Scriptural.

 

Yea....no....why bother?!? :laugh:

 

Whom He foreknew - He what??

The idea that God chooses an arbitrary method to select out the saved - is often the way that the Calvinist argument is framed - by Calvinists themselves.

======================

[FONT=&quot]In our Confession, Chapter 3, Sections 3, 4, and 7, we have this description of it: "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life and others foreordained to everlasting death" (3). "These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished" (4).
"The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice" (7).[/FONT]
….
We must not make an independent God depend upon his own dependent creature. But does not Scripture often represent a salvation or ruin of sinners as conditioned on their own faith or unbelief? Yes.
….
We (Calvinists) believe that God's election of individuals is unconditioned and sovereign. They (Arminians) believe that while eternal and particular, it is on account of God's eternal, omniscient foresight of the given sinner's future faith and repentance, and perseverance in holy living. But we Presbyterians must dissent for these reasons: It is inconsistent with the eternity, omnipotence, and sovereignty of the great first cause to represent his eternal purposes thus, as grounded in, or conditioned on, anything which one of his dependent creatures would hereafter contingently do or leave undone. – R.L. Dabney

=====================

Is it any wonder that in Calvinism's denial of "God so Loved the WORLD -- yes really!" - it is difficult to then teach your child to sing "Jesus loves ME - this I know for the Bible tells me so".

Because each time the Bible "tells me so" it is followed by Calvinism's "well not really ALL - just the FEW of Matt 7:

The Arminian argument claims that it is the "good pleasure of His Will" to choose that "HE is not WILLING that any should perish but that ALL should come to repentance" 2Peter 3.

God says "I have NO PLEASURE in the death of the wicked" --

But Calvinism responds once again to the Bible with "not so!" and argues the mythical idea that it is "the good pleasure of His will" that some of the wicked not go to heaven.

Just as they answer "not so!" when confronted with "God so loved the WORLD that He gave"

They have no Bible basis for it.

 

You know what your problem is, besides the pseudo-Christian denomination you belong to, you are taking your concept of fairness and wrapping it around God's neck to make His sovereignty conform to your ideals.

 

:applause: :applause: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

And the same is seen in several anti-cal/reformed here on BB.